Letter from the Chair 2

Letter from the Executive Director 4

Guest Column by Governor Janet Napolitano 5

Colorado River Restoration in Grand Canyon 6

Public Funding to Protect Utah’s Open Space? 8

Atlas Uranium Tailings Endgame 9

San Juan Saga Continues 10

Woody Ridge Project Loses Trust Support 11

Earth Day in Utah 12

Jeeps Jeopardize Utah Back Country 14

Trust and Tribes Work Together for

Sustainable Economy 16

Trust Volunteers Connect with the Earth 18

Staff Notes 20

Contents In a time when the federal government producesmostly bad news for conservationists, we have a momentto savor. In April, Chief Judge Dee Benson, of the federaldistrict court in Salt Lake City, upheld President Clinton’screation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante NationalMonument. Chief Judge Benson, appointed by PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush, wrote a lengthy opinion, consistentwith earlier judicial rulings, concluding that Clinton hadample authority to proclaim the monument under theAntiquities Act of 1906. Given Chief Judge Benson’sstature and the depth of his opinion, the legality of theGrand Staircase and the other Clinton monuments cannow be considered settled.

And what a legacy those monuments are. In nineteenexecutive orders, Clinton put sixteen million acres intoprotected status (national monuments are essentiallyidentical to national parks). This bold initiative is oneof the grandest episodes in conservation history.

The Colorado Plateau has been a major beneficiary.The remote, rugged Grand Staircase, Clinton’s first andlargest monument, is especially well known. At 1.7 mil-lion acres—three percent of Utah—it encompasses mostof the Escalante canyons and the dramatic steppedplateaus that make up the Grand Staircase.

The Grand Staircase-Escalante also filled in the missingcenter of what is now a vast landscape of protected land.Its borders link on the west, north, and east with BryceCanyon National Park, Dixie National Forest, CapitolReef National Park, and Glen Canyon National RecreationArea. No wonder that Clinton’s signing of the proclama-tion on the South Rim in 1996 drew such a large andexultant crowd.

More was to come. In 2000, directly to the south ofthe Grand Staircase, on the lightly populated ArizonaStrip, Clinton created the 300,000-acre Vermilion CliffsNational Monument and, to the southwest, the GrandCanyon-Parashant National Monument at one millionacres. Like the Grand Staircase, these monuments areclosed to mining and will remain largely roadless. Mostother lands in the Arizona Strip are included within theNorth Rim of Grand Canyon National Park and theKaibab National Forest. Grazing is still permitted inmuch of this country but increasingly the land is getting

Encouraging News forthe Canyon Country

L E T T E R F R O M T H E C H A I R

3

some respite from it; in the Grand Staircase alone, theGrand Canyon Trust has bought up 500,000 acres ofgrazing leases.

This expansive protected area of southern Utah andthe Arizona Strip—along with the Greater YellowstoneEcosystem, the River of No Return country of centralIdaho, and Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front—constitutesone of the wildest, most remote landscapes in the lower48 states.

It is not just our species that thrives on the bracingwildness and open spaces of this extraordinary block ofland straddling the Arizona-Utah line. In 1996, the yearafter reintroducing wolves in Yellowstone, Bruce Babbittcame to the Arizona Strip on a similar mission. Californiacondors had flourished on the mammals and wind cur-rents of the canyon country for millennia, only to bedriven to the edge of extinction by our bullets, poisons,and power lines. In a last-ditch rescue operation, scien-tists took the last nine wild condors into captivity. Therethey bred and increased their numbers to the point thatthey were ready for reintroduction.

So Babbitt and scientists from the interior departmentand the Peregrine Fund released six California condorson the top of the Paria Plateau, above the 1000-foot, bur-nished red and cream colored Vermilion Cliffs, withinwhat is now the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument.

The birds have done well. The flock, finding the car-casses of the fine mule deer herd on the Kaibab Plateauparticularly tasty, now numbers forty-one. For years theyproduced no chicks—they had to relearn how to breed inthe wild. Then, last year, Condor 305 hopped out of itscave in the Grand Canyon, the first to fledge in the wild ina generation. It surely uplifts a person—I know I’ll neverforget it—to see the big birds on the wing or to spot theirgiant prints on the wet sand of a Colorado River beach.

It could get even better. There is talk of bringingwolves back to the North Rim. The habitat is certainlythere: those Kaibab Plateau deer will make fine diningfor the wolves also. Oh, will those exuberant howls everfill up the night…

Monuments. Broad, open country, hospitable to ourkind and those returning as well. They’re at the heart ofwhat we believe in at the Grand Canyon Trust.

—Charles Wilkinson

L E T T E R F R O M T H E E X E C U T I V E D I R E C T O R

4

In the center spread of this issue of the Advocate you willfind excerpts from a speech Terry Tempest Williams madeto a large group of Moab-area conservationists on EarthDay. She was exploring the true nature of democracy, as shehas been doing with great courage and insight over the lastseveral years. Her full remarks will appear as “The OpenSpace of Democracy” in the July 2004 issue of Orion maga-zine. I had the privilege of eating dinner with Terry recently,when she asked several of us to dig more deeply into thenotion that the human heart is the first home of democracy.It struck me at the time that the American people havealways made erratic progress toward a more just society byconsistently telling themselves a hopeful story about ahumane and reasonable America, no matter how inconsis-tent such a tale might be with the facts.

A small group of landed aristocrats established arepublic built on the enslavement and murder of untoldnumbers of Africans and Native Americans and in whichwomen could not vote. We told ourselves that it was abeacon of the rights of man. But, that story and that ideal

infected us and eventually slavery was abolished, womengot the vote, and America really did become an imperfectbut earnest model for the rest of the world. In time, ouridealism even extended to the environment as we setaside national parks and wilderness and establishedprotections for our air and water and fellow creatures.Governor Napolitano’s article in this issue about herdetermination to nurture the health of the ColoradoRiver is a great example of the essentially American traitto see the world as a better place and work to make it so.

What concerns me today is that many of our leaders areno longer telling a hopeful story about America. Instead,we are told that we are too threatened to continue to enjoyall our freedoms. We cannot afford to help those lessfortunate or to worry too much about the future. Publicinvolvement in government decisions must be “stream-lined” out of existence. And concern for “luxuries,” suchas a healthy environment, is a million miles down on thepriority list. Considering how important our hopeful sto-ries have been on the way toward a better society, I shudderto think what kind of future these men are creating bysacrificing all to the notion of mean-spirited efficiency.

Along these lines, we got a letter at the Trust recentlyfrom a schoolteacher who was chagrinned that we havefiled suit to protect the few remaining humpback chub inthe Grand Canyon. The letter said, “Are you guys seriouslytrying to save those lame fish? It’s evolution. Get a life!”

These days, when I think of lame creatures like theperfectly adapted, three million year old humpback chub,I think of the movie Apollo 13. Recall the scene when EdHarris, playing Flight Director Gene Kranz, summons hisground crew around a table on which are piled all thematerials the marooned astronauts have on board theirspaceship and instructs them to design a carbon dioxidescrubber before the crew is asphyxiated. That’s us on ourspaceship earth, and casually throwing away our fellowcreatures is not only morally outrageous, it is as recklessand unintelligent as if the astronauts had thrown away theduct tape before considering what use it might have.

We have been given a world beautiful and complexfar beyond our capacity to imagine, and as if to under-score the one-time nature of this gift it is unimaginablyfar to the next habitable planet, if such a thing evenexists. We have everything we need on board to makethis a paradise, but we waste things at our mortal peril.That is why storytellers like Terry Tempest Williams areso essential. She reminds us of what life on this gorgeousworld, among remarkable fellow travelers, can andshould be all about. I thank all of you for your compan-ionship on the journey.

—Bill Hedden

G U E S T C O L U M N

5

For more than 80 years Arizona leaders have fought to ensurethat Arizona gets its fair share of Colorado River water. Leadershave done battle in Congress and the courts, and we have seenthe construction of the Central Arizona Project to bring thatwater to thirsty communities in central and southern Arizona.

Now, after decades of fighting over the quantity of water Ari-zona will receive, we are coming to grips with the vital need tofight for the quality of that water.

In April, American Rivers released its 2004 report ofAmerica’s most endangered rivers. Unfortunately, pollutionput the Colorado River at the top of that list.

The Colorado is the lifeblood of the Southwest. It providesdrinking water to more than 25 million Americans and irrigationwater for agriculture throughout the deserts of Arizona andsouthern California.

Unfortunately, a Nevada missile fuel facility operated duringthe Cold War continues to dump more than 400 pounds of per-chlorate into the river each day. More than 110,000 gallons ofradioactive water enters the river each day from a now-closedmill in Moab, Utah. And nitrate levels four times higher thanEPA public health limits are being recorded in the river, due tothe presence of septic tanks in Arizona riverfront communities.

This report is a clarion call to clean up the Colorado River,and I intend to take up that call.

First, I plan to meet with Arizona’s Congressional delegation.The Colorado River is controlled by the federal Bureau of Recla-mation, and many of the sources of pollution are federal sites.The federal government must take up its responsibility to cleanup the river, and I will work closely with Arizona’s federal repre-sentatives to ensure this happens.

Every day the federal government allows pollution to flowdown a river under its care is a day that state and local govern-ments are left with avoidable expense of purifying that water.

Second, I plan to coordinate a meeting with the Governorsof California, Nevada and Utah, three states in the ColoradoRiver basin that are most impacted by the river’s pollution. Weneed to determine what steps can be taken together to begincleaning up the Colorado. I hope to hold that meeting here inArizona this summer.

And finally, I will convene a study committee of all stake-holders, including federal, state, county, local, tribal andagribusiness representatives, to identify strategies the statecan pursue in order to make this great river clean again. Iwill expect a report by the end of 2004.

I have rafted the Colorado River, and I have spent a lot oftime in its riverfront communities—I was in Parker just a fewdays before the river report was released. I feel a personal senseof urgency to clean up the our river, and I hope Arizona’s otherleaders will join me in determining exactly what needs to getdone to make it the clean-flowing Colorado River it once was.

Clean RiversGuest Column by

Governor Janet Napolitano

6

The Colorado River drains a huge, arid watershed inthe country’s fastest growing region. Not surprisingly,more money has been spent damming, diverting, pump-ing, and otherwise appropriating each gallon of theColorado’s flow for human use than on any other signifi-cant river on earth. The result has been habitat destructionso pervasive that the natural systems of the river are inshreds where they have not been destroyed altogether.

The ecological costs have been high because theColorado’s biological endowment is as strangely richand unusual as the famous landscape it has carveddown into the Colorado Plateau. The river system nur-tured 36 species of native fish; two-thirds of which arefound nowhere else; and 85 percent of them are imper-iled below Glen Canyon Dam.

The Grand Canyon Trust has identified four areas ofresource decline on the Colorado River in Grand Canyonthat must be improved in order to restore the river to ahealthy condition. These are: native fish, native ripariancommunities, sediment, and archaeological resources.

The humpback chub, an endangered four-million-year-old fish found only in the Colorado River, is downfrom 1989 population levels of 10,500 to 3,500 cur-rently—a 67 percent decline. Other native fish havesuffered similar declines. Dramatic habitat changescreated by Glen Canyon Dam and the proliferation ofnonnative fish are the primary suspects in the disturb-ing decline of the humpback chub population in GrandCanyon. Releases of cold, clear water from the damcontinue to create unfavorable habitat conditions forthe humpback chub and favorable habitat conditionsfor the chub’s nonnative predators.

Native riparian communities are also in decline. Thesand beach community, composed mostly of grassesand forbs, historically occurred in a wide band adjacentto the river that is now being overrun by the nonnativetamarisk tree. Above the sand beach community isanother narrow band of long-lived trees and shrubs thatrun parallel to the river. Known as the “old high waterzone” community, it is being degraded by the invasionof nonnative species and the lack of recruitment of newindividuals to balance mortality.

Sediment measurements in the river and on beachesshow continuing, long-term declines. This is disastrousbecause river sediment supports habitat for aquatic andriparian species, provides recreational camping sites,and is critical for protecting cultural resources. Nolonger is there sufficient input and sediment storage to

Colorado River Restoration in Grand CanyonCollaboration and Litigation

Colorado River through Grand Canyon.

Bro

nze

Bla

ck

7

balance the natural loss through erosion.Grand Canyon now only receives sedi-ment inputs from its tributaries—aboutfive percent of the amount of sedimentthat historically entered Grand Canyoneach year.

Because sediment flow is diminished, cultural sites arealso in decline. Intermittent flows in tributary drainagescreate destructive gullies and erode archaeological resources.Before the dam was constructed, flood flows quickly refilledgullies with transported sediment.

Advocacy for Restoration—Collaboration and LitigationThe Trust is striving to implement four, critical riverrestoration management tools. These are: (1) dam releasesmimicking a natural hydrograph to benefit native fish andbuild beaches; (2) temperature control device to improvehabitat conditions for humpback chub; (3) sediment aug-mentation device to increase sediment retention; and (4)comprehensive nonnative fish control program to benefitnative fish. Our advocacy efforts include both collabora-tion and litigation.

CollaborationThe Grand Canyon Trust is a partner in the Glen CanyonDam Adaptive Management Program (AMP), a 25-stake-holder collaborative process that advises the Secretary ofthe Interior to implement actions to improve ColoradoRiver resources in Grand Canyon.

The Trust helped develop a two-year experimentalactions program within the AMP, now in its second yearof activities. Part of the experimental actions programincluded doing big flood releases, but because the riversystem did not receive enough precipitation to triggerneeded sediment loads from the tributaries, a planned45,000 cubic feet/second flood release in January 2004did not occur. Reduced sediment flow due to droughtconditions strengthens the argument for mechanicalsediment augmentation.

High fluctuating flows, also a part of the experimentalactions program, have taken place from January throughMarch. This flow regime is designed to disrupt spawningof predatory nonnative rainbow trout whose populationhas exploded to several hundred thousand fish, posing asignificant predation and competition problem for hump-back chub. Trout are also being removed from the LittleColorado River-Colorado River confluence.

Another significant effort within the AMP has been theTrust-sponsored Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan, aproposal to implement experiments and other actions toaddress dam operations, nonnative species control, watertemperature, turbidity, and public outreach. This proposalcreated a special committee involving several state andfederal agencies in 21 projects to protect Grand Canyonresources. The Plan includes all of our proposed manage-ment tools—beneficial dam releases, temperature controldevice, sediment augmentation study, and nonnative fishcontrol programs.

At the March 2004 AMP meeting we secured a recom-mendation from the AMP stakeholders to undertake theNEPA process to implement a temperature control deviceat Glen Canyon Dam. This is needed to warm river tem-peratures for successful native fish spawning and rearing.

Also at the March 2004 AMP meeting, the Trust suc-cessfully advocated for a feasibility study of sedimentaugmentation devices, the first step toward possibleimplementation at Glen Canyon Dam.

LitigationTo stimulate change needed to save the humpback chub,the Grand Canyon Trust filed an ESA Section 4 lawsuiton March 31, 2004, challenging the adequacy of theRecovery Goals for the humpback chub. On August 1,2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued RecoveryGoals for four endangered Colorado River fish—thehumpback chub, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow andrazorback sucker. These new Recovery Goals are inade-quate in many ways, most detrimentally with theirinclusion of extremely low minimum viable populationnumbers, the number of fish needed for recovery.The goals state that humpback chub are recovered at 2,100fish even though the Grand Canyon population has declinedwhile endangered to the present level of over 3,500.Earthjustice is providing our legal representation.

It is our objective to secure true science-based recoverygoals for the humpback chub and other endangered fishto give these native fish a real shot at recovery.

—Nikolai Ramsey

Humpback chub.

Dav

id W

ard

8

Public Fundingto Protect Utah’sOpen Space?

As Will Rogers famously remarked, “When it comes to land,they aren’t making any more of it.” Once farms, foothills and wild-lands are bulldozed for development, they are gone for good. Thissimple realization has prompted voters in most states to approvelarge public expenditures aimed at preserving open space for ourchildren and grandchildren. In Nevada, for example, a recent$200 million bond for open space got 60% voter approval.

In Utah, where real estate interests dominate the legislature,things have been different. A Critical Land Fund was legislativelycreated in 1999, but its modest initial funding of $3 millionhas been eroded by budget cuts to the point where less than$500,000 has been appropriated to the fund in recent years.Pathetic as that is, the state’s $9 million total investment in 37projects has been matched by $45 million in federal, private andlocal government money to protect 33,000 acres. Substantialfunding could accomplish great things, leaving a legacy ofprotected lands for future generations.

This year, conservationists and a wide spectrum of allies aremaking a determined effort to bring the question of open spacefunding to the voters. Republican lawmakers bottled up in commit-tee a proposal for a referendum, so we are collecting signatures toplace an initiative on the November ballot. A group called Utahnsfor Clean Water, Clean Air and Quality Growth, with assistancefrom The Nature Conservancy, Grand Canyon Trust, Utah OpenLands and others, is leading the effort. If the ballot measure issuccessful, the state will issue $150 million in revenue bonds topurchase land to preserve rivers, lakes, watershed, open space,wildlife habitat, parks and recreational trails for future generations.The bonds will be retired with proceeds from a modest sales taxincrease of 5 cents on each $100 for a maximum of 10 years.

Proposed projects will be submitted to the Utah QualityGrowth Commission by state agencies, local governments andconservation interests. Monies will be earmarked according to aprescribed formula. Efforts toward wildlife conservation (13%),water and air quality (11%), farmland preservation (11%) andenhancement of state parks (7%) will be led by the appropriatestate agencies, while a like amount (38%) will be allocated toprojects proposed by conservation interests. Local communitieswill direct spending of 17% of the monies and the fund will berounded out with projects from the state museums of naturalhistory (3%).

It is still too soon to tell if we will be successful in qualifyingthe measure for the ballot. Utah’s difficult laws regarding ballot ini-tiatives require us to get signatures totaling 10% of the votes cast inthe last gubernatorial election in 26 of the 29 senatorial districts.We calculate that this means something like 70,000 signatures. Asof this writing, we have over 90,000 signatures with a few days stillremaining before the June 1st deadline. The Lieutenant Governorwill rule on the sufficiency of our petitions in early July. It will be along month of waiting, worth it because something truly importantfor the future of Utah is hanging in the balance.

—Bill Hedden

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

GC

T ar

chiv

e

9

Long time readers of the Advocate know about theTrust’s program to get 12 million tons of uranium millwastes removed from the bank of the Colorado River nearMoab. This year the Department of Energy (DOE) willfinally determine the fate of the toxic pile.

To briefly recap the situation, as of last fall the DOEwas evaluating four reclamation alternatives in a compre-hensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Theprincipal options were to cap the tailings where they sitin the floodplain of the river, or move them to one ofseveral stable, isolated sites nearby where the wastescould be truly isolated for the long term. DOE had donean about-face from its position at the end of the Clintonadministration, when it held that the wastes had to beremoved from the river despite the projected $450 mil-lion cost. Instead, they were quietly favoring the far lessprotective option of capping in place because of its esti-mated $250 million price tag.

DOE had requested $4-5 million in FY 2004 fundingin order to begin treating the toxic discharge into the riverbefore completion of the long EIS process. However, Pres-ident Bush’s budget request for the site was just $960,000,far less than required for the EIS alone. The Trust helpedorganize a coalition of downstream congressional intereststo fight for full funding and we were successful in secur-ing $4.5 million. DOE is now writing the EIS in expedited

Atlas Uranium Tailings Endgame

fashion and also operating treatment wells that interceptthe poisoned groundwater and route it to an evaporationpond before it reaches the river.

Several new developments have caused a stir withoutchanging the stark choice DOE faces. The first of thesewas a DOE plan to slurry the wastes into a salt cavern4,000 feet below the ground. This new alternative wasexpected to be as inexpensive as capping, but possiblymuch safer. DOE Headquarters in Washington arbitrarilynixed it without serious study. The second developmentis new information from wells drilled on both sides of theriver, which show that the northern end of the Moab Val-ley, including the area under the tailings, is covered with15-30 feet of fine river silt underlain by coarse sand andlarge cobble rocks. Carbon dating shows that all the silthas been scoured away by massive floods twice in the lastthousand years. If the tailings are left in place, they willlikely be washed down river sometime soon.

The Draft EIS, which DOE has said will have the peculiardefect of not identifying a preferred alternative (probablydue to election year politics), was scheduled for release dur-ing May. A long review at DOE Headquarters has delayedthe release, perhaps as late as August. In the meantime, theUtah congressional delegation and the State of Utah havejoined the Trust in asking that DOE hasten the decision tomove the wastes out of harm’s way to a secure place.

—Bill Hedden

UTAH

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

ARIZONA

Moab

Atlas UraniumTailings

Atlas UraniumTailings

Flagstaff

Colora

doR

iver

GrandCanyon

Kayenta

10

It’s after midnight on a cold November evening in SantaFe New Mexico. Laptop computers and piles of legal doc-uments blanket the dining room table in the motel. Fileboxes overflowing with briefs, reply briefs, motions andother necessary trial documents line the walls. Tomorrowis the final day in a three-day trial to determine if the SanJuan power plant is violating the Clean Air Act. GrandCanyon Trust attorneys Reed Zars and George Hays areprinting out their last subpoena and fine-tuning theirstrategy for wrapping up the trial. The next day at thestone federal courthouse, the last witnesses are examinedand cross-examined, final arguments are made, and thegavel bangs down ending the trial.

Two months later, Judge Black rendered a decisionrejecting the illogical argument put forth by Public ServiceCompany of New Mexico (PNM) that San Juan’s own airpollution monitors could not be used to prove the plantwas violating the pollution limits set forth in its permit.PNM’s monitors show that the plant exceeded its opacitylimit more than 60,000 times in the past few years. Opac-ity is the density of pollution coming from the plant’ssmokestacks and it closely correlates with the amount ofparticles and gases emitted by the plant—pollutants thathave been linked to human health problems.

San Juan Saga Continues

PNM argued that although its state-of-the-art continuousopacity monitors were specifically designed to measure theopacity of pollution emitted by San Juan, violations could onlybe determined by a person “eyeballing” the plume. The courtrejected this argument, noting that similar opacity monitorsare used to “calibrate” the tester’s eyeballs. The court also reliedon a letter from the New Mexico Environment Departmentthat said PNM’s opacity monitors—not visual inspections ofthe plume—are the appropriate method for determining com-pliance with the state’s permit.

The decision clears the way for determining the numberof violations at the plant. The next step will be to establishwhat PNM must do to stop violating the Clean Air Act andwhat penalties it should pay for having unlawfully fouledthe air in the Four Corners region.

But that is not the end of the story.

Based on testimony given at the trial by PNM employeesand documents in PNM’s own files, numerous additional viola-tions were discovered. As a result, the Trust and its co-plaintiffSierra Club sent a notice of intent to file a second enforcementaction. The April notice letter contains four allegations:• PNM has knowingly purchased and burned coal with an ash

content well in excess of the design specifications of the boilersand exceeding the ability of San Juan’s air pollution controlequipment to govern the emissions of ash and other pollutants.

• PNM has knowingly operated San Juan as a “load following”facility, even though it was designed as a “base load” facility,something the plant and its pollution controls were not designedto do and causing an increase in emissions.

• PNM has continued to violate the opacity limit in its permitafter the Trust and Sierra Club filed their complaint in 2002.

• PNM has violated and continues to violate Clean Air Actregulations by failing to submit true, accurate, and completeannual compliance certifications for the plant.

Pollution from the San Juan power plant has been bothan eyesore and health threat for years, regularly obscuringsacred sites like Shiprock, drawing complaints from itsneighbors, and reducing visibility at nearby national parksand wilderness areas.

Verl Hopper, a member of both the Grand Canyon Trustand the Sierra Club, succinctly sums it up when he says,“The San Juan power plant is a real stinker and it needs tobe cleaned up!”

Stay tuned.—Rick Moore

Ric

k M

oore

another based on their individual support or opposition tothe decision, controversy fills the void previously occupiedby agreement for collaborative action.

Insofar as Flagstaff is a venue in which environmentalgroups, the Forest Service, and other stakeholders formulatenational positions on critical fire issues, the Woody decisionsuggests a return to authoritarian decision-making withinForest Service ranks. Grand Canyon Trust co-founded theGFFP in an era when the agency sought to move beyondthat paradigm and its bitter legacy—which includeddegraded ecosystems, paralyzing environmental litigation,and record-low public confidence. The Forest Servicesought the involvement and investment of diverse intereststo forge safe decision space within which restorative forestmanagement could proceed. At press time, at least five envi-ronmental groups had appealed the Woody Ridge decision.

Is the Woody Ridge Forest Restoration Project indicativeof the new Forest Service under the Bush Administration’sHealthy Forests Initiative (HFI)? We believe the jury isstill out. To be sure, administrative, regulatory, andstatutory changes of the HFI increase agency authoritywhile decreasing public participation and environmentalreview. But the real test for the Forest Service, at least forthe purposes of restoring fire to fire-adapted forests, mayhave more to do with an institutional commitment tofacilitating public discourse and negotiated consensuswithin transparent and scientifically rigorous planningenvironments.

Absent that commitment and corresponding institu-tional changes, a future of gridlock may be more likelythan not. And just as gridlock won’t restore fire-adaptedforests, that’s a future our society, forests, and nativeplants and wildlife can ill afford.

—Taylor McKinnon

11

In April, Grand Canyon Trust reluctantly withdrewsupport of the Woody Ridge Forest Restoration Projectlocated southwest of Flagstaff, Arizona. The project, whichincludes several thousand acres of thinning and burningwithin a 30,000 acre analysis area, is the fifth forestrestoration project developed under the auspices of the25-member Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership (GFFP),of which the Trust is a founding member. Woody Ridgemarks the first time Grand Canyon Trust has withdrawnsupport for a Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership project.

Our objections focused on three areas of concern.First, the Coconino National Forest’s decision to proceedwith the project included plans to remove large trees inthe 82% of the treatment acres where their own environ-mental analysis showed no need to do so. Second, theproject included no plans or resource commitments formonitoring, which is one of the GFFP’s three primarygoals. Finally, the Forest Service plan failed to ensure thatduff and litter would be adequately cleared from the baseof rare old trees, as is necessary to prevent fatal root scorchduring prescribed fires.

The Trust’s positions of objection were based onconsensus recommendations forged in the GFFP’s col-laborative process. That process included two years ofproject design, field trips, and meetings that, in the end,yielded written recommendations to the Forest Serviceendorsed by the GFFP’s community advisory board andboard of directors.

The implications of the Forest Service’s decision, whichincluded few if any substantive changes in response to ourrecommendations, are far reaching. Most immediately, thedecision drops a wedge into community consensus. Asstakeholders must side with or against the agency and one

Woody Ridge Project Loses Trust Support

GC

T ar

chiv

e

On a blessedly rainy Earth Day, hundreds of

people and more than a dozen conservation

groups gathered at Red Cliffs Ranch to celebrate

the remarkable land protection effort being

accomplished along the Colorado River outside

Moab and to hear the inspirational words of

Terry Tempest Williams. Here are some highlights

from her address.

“The human heart is the first home of democracy. It is where we embrace ourquestions. Can we be equitable? Can we be generous? Can we listen with ourwhole beings, not just our minds, and offer our attention rather than ouropinions? And do we have enough resolve in our hearts to act courageously,relentlessly, without giving up—ever—trusting our fellow citizens to participatewith us in our drive for a democracy alive, not dead.”

“A crisis woke us up. A shared love of placeopened a dialogue with neighbors. We askedfor help. We found partners. We used ourcollective intelligence to formulate a plan.And then we had to search within ourselvesto find what each of us had to give.”

Terry Tempest Williams inspires crowd gathered for Moab Earth Day celebration

“As we look back over the story we have been living in Castle Valley, it does notbegin to convey the power and empowering nature of the process. It is throughthe process of defining what we want as a town that we are becoming a realcommunity. This is not simply a story of not-in-my-backyard, rendered by criticswho would denounce the sovereignty of neighbors. It is the unfolding tale ofhow a small community in the desert is rising to its own defense, saying, “Webelieve we have a stake in the future of our own community, which we chooseto define beyond our own boundaries of time and space and species.”

Quotes by Terry Tempest Williams, “Engagement,” from The Open Space of Democracy, Orion Magazine, 2004

Photo credits: Castle Valley by Jeff Foott, petroglyph by Alice Drogin, Red-tailed hawk by Tom Till

“In my private moments ofdespair, I am aware of thelimits of my own imagination.I am learning in Castle Valleythat imaginations shared invitecollaboration and collaborationcreates community. A life inassociation, not a life indepen-dent, is the democratic ideal.We participate in the vitalityof the struggle.”

14

Lured by the opportunity to venture en masse intothe exquisite red rock back country of southeast Utah,thousands of off-road enthusiasts descended on Moabthis Spring for the Annual Jeep Safari and left behind apermanently damaged landscape. A single jeep cannotpass over this fragile terrain without leaving a lastingimpression and the impact of thousands of off-road-vehicles (ORV) has changed the face of the wild andrugged Colorado Plateau.

The landscape was not the only victim of the ORVonslaught. A private property owner, attempting todefend his court-approved right to close a jeep trail onhis property, was run over in a confrontation that landedhim in the hospital. Later, a death threat was scrawledacross his “No Trespassing” sign accompanied by a noosehanging from a nearby tree. Another four-wheeler, whoclashed with a mountain biker, was removed from thebackcountry by a helicopter brought in for crowd control.

Some ORV devotees respect the land and its people.The Moab Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management(BLM) issues the special use permit for the Jeep Safari andhas an amicable working relationship with the event’sorganizers, the Red Rock 4-Wheelers Club. The Club’svolunteers spend much time and energy working withthe BLM on trail maintenance projects and education of visitors about careful use of public lands and havereceived awards from the BLM for their efforts. Clubmembers guide visitors registering for the Safari. However,many jeepers don’t associate with the organized event.That, combined with limited law enforcement, allowssome users to create their own rules making the eventultimately unmanageable.

Some public lands users see southeast Utah as theirown private sandbox and resist access or use restrictionsfor the backcountry road system. Their actions have createdan erosion problem that causes blinding dust storms rival-ing conditions in the Sahara Desert. Cryptobiotic soil crustsand vegetation release unstable soils to the wind whencrushed by reckless ORV drivers. The problem is madeworse by a severe and prolonged drought now enteringits seventh year.

In recent years new, highly specialized vehicles knownas “Rock Crawlers” have come to town bringing newthreats to the terrain. With tires so large that a ladder isnecessary to mount the vehicle, these machines are clearlydesigned for extreme challenges, not simply taking in thescenery on a dirt road. They assault the wild placesunreachable by any other type of motorized transport,

Jeeps Jeopardize Utah Back Country

scraping over boulder piles and leaving unsightly blackrubber reminders on the rocks.

Last Fall, the Moab BLM Office began taking publiccomment to revise their Resource Management Plan(RMP), its first update since 1985. As a result of publicinput, a key component for the new RMP will be an ORVtravel plan. At public scoping meetings, the Moab andMonticello area offices revealed their travel plans will bebased on maps provided by Grand and San Juan counties,charts which unfortunately resemble a bowl of spaghettidumped on a page.

Jeep despoils rare desert water source.

15

A roads analysis was requested by Southern UtahWilderness Alliance (SUWA) and was completed by GrandCanyon Trust’s GIS Specialist Steve Fluck. It revealed thatmore than 90% of all lands in southeast Utah are withinone mile of a backcountry road or trail. Many of theseroads are redundant and serve no purpose, such as oldseismic exploration routes leading nowhere. Some “roads”are simply two tracks being reclaimed by the desert fromlack of use while others are disputable as county roads,having not yet been proved under RS2477 claims.

The Red Rock Heritage Coalition—composed ofconcerned citizens, business owners and conservationorganizations—was formed to offer an alternative travelplan to the BLM and to address impacts of unrestrictedORV use in the beautiful and vulnerable lands surroundingMoab and Monticello. SUWA is a very active participantand the Grand Canyon Trust is also working with thegroup. The coalition has devised a set of sensible travelplan principles including: • Vehicles should be restricted to designated roads and

trails only. BLM should eliminate “open” designations toprevent cross-country travel and new user created trails.

• All routes should serve some identifiable purpose.Redundant routes should be eliminated.

• Routes designated in the new travel plan should be capa-ble of sustaining high use over the 15-20 year life of thenew RMP without causing biological damage or ruiningthe peace and quiet that most visitors want to enjoy.

• Threats to biological diversity; habitat destruction andfragmentation; edge effects; exotic species invasion;pollution (noise, petrochemical, heavy metal); run-offsedimentation; and wildlife poaching must be consid-ered in any travel plan

• The existence of too many roads increases threats to theirreplaceable cultural resources of SE Utah.

ORV damage in “Behind the Rocks” proposed wilderness,near Moab.

Pho

tos

by K

evin

Wal

ker

• Ecologically damaging routes, such as those throughriparian areas, should be closed.

• There should be fair allocation of routes betweenmotorized and non-motorized users to avoid crowdingand conflicts on the same trails.

• To facilitate enforcement of restrictions there should bea “closed unless signed open” policy for backcountryroads. Many visitors are law-abiding and this wouldhelp them identify legal routes.

• To balance recreational opportunities, routes intootherwise roadless areas should be closed to provideplaces of quiet and peace.

For weeks after the Moab Jeep Safari, the local news-paper was filled with letters-to-the-editor complainingabout visitors who trashed the town and surroundinglands. Some residents offered opposing views saying“Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, the event is an eco-nomic boon to the community.”

The Grand County Council held a public hearing togather comments from a disgruntled community concernedabout what may come with next year’s event. If the BLM canagree to some restraint in the use of public lands stressed bydrought and “multiple use” and visitors comply, then all ofsoutheast Utah might avoid being closed for restoration.

—Laura Kamala

You can help determine the future of southeast Utah’sbackcountry by visiting the Red Rock Heritage Coalition’swebsite at www.redrockheritage.org and signing on tothe petition in the comments section. The BLM is currentlyanalyzing public comment, to voice support for the RedRock Heritage Plan you can also write:

Moab RMPBrent Northrup, Project ManagerBureau of Land ManagementMoab Field Office82 East Dogwood Moab, Utah 84532

Monticello RMPGary Torres, Supervisory PlannerBureau of Land Management Monticello Field Office435 North Main StreetMonticello, Utah 8453

16

Trust and Tribes Work Together for Sustainable Economy

An example of this policy shift is the Navajo Nation’sLocal Governance Act (LGA), which grants the Nation’s 110chapters the authority to enact their own traditional formsof government; create land use plans and zoning; approvebusiness site leases; raise revenue through taxes and bond-ing; resolve disputes; and enact community ordinances.

The Hopi tribal government is structured to allow vil-lages and chapters similar authority. Several Hopi villagesare pro-actively exploring development of zoning ordi-nances, land use planning, and business site leases. Thesechanges create opportunities for committed organizationsto help local leaders and members with information andtechnical assistance to build sustainable economies incor-porating effective conservation strategies.

To begin this work, we will thoroughly research thebest existing ideas and collaborate with other organiza-tions and governments to educate Native Americancommunities on sustainable development and conserva-tion. We will “traditionalize” this information to fit thecultural and community rhythms of both tribes bycontracting with Hopi and Navajo culture and languageexperts, and artists. Once the information is appropri-ately packaged, we will engage the six most interestedcommunities and schedule the community capacitybuilding program over an 18-month period. Workshopswill include youth, elders, traditional leaders, adminis-trators, farmers, shepherds, business owners, artists,and community members.

The project will enhance the decision-making capabili-ties of local community leaders and empower a diversecross-section of tribal members by providing them theknowledge needed to protect local cultural values andhelp guide development according to those values. As aresult, the foundation will be laid for wider application ofcommunity-based, sustainable development in traditionalNative American communities in the future.

—Tony Skrelunas

Change is coming from many directions for the NativeAmerican lands that make up more than thirty percent of theColorado Plateau. A host of forces, from both inside and out-side the region, have the potential to transform rural NativeAmerican communities that have historically linked culturalvalues, landscape, and economic development. Communitiesin the Hopi and Navajo Nations are experiencing a varietyof pressures from booming population growth, high touristvisitation, environmental degradation, growth managementissues, and increased unemployment.

The primary goal of the Native America Program is toestablish long-term constructive relationships with NativeAmerican Tribes enabling us to work together to achieveconservation goals.

In the short-term, due to economic uncertainties createdby the potential closure of Mojave Generating Station andthe Black Mesa Mine, the Trust established a two-year goalto assist the Hopi and Western Navajo communities increating a more diversified, sustainable economy lessdependent on natural resource development.

It’s been a challenging task for tribal policy makers inthe past and will be for the Trust—especially with theTrust’s modest team of one full-time, and three part-timemembers. It also raises a question: “Where does one startto assist the Tribes?”

The Trust chose to start by focusing its work on twoclear approaches: 1) build sustainable development capaci-ty in six traditional Hopi and Navajo communities and; 2)create five model, sustainable businesses.

In the past, most economic proposals presented to tribalpolicy makers emphasized natural resource development andrarely considered long-term consequences on area ecology,and local cultural values. As a result, local communitiesstrongly resisted many projects. However, tribal governmentshave recently instituted policy changes increasing decision-making authority in chapter and village governments.

Dav

id E

dwar

ds

John

Run

ning

John

Run

ning

John

Run

ning

17

News Notes

Owners of San Juan Power Plant AcknowledgeViolating the Clean Air ActThe Trust scored a major victory in its effort to clean upthe San Juan power plant on May 26th, when PublicService Company of New Mexico (PNM) filed a formalstatement in federal district court acknowledging that SanJuan has violated the opacity limit in its air quality permitmore than 42,000 times. Opacity measures the density ofharmful particles and gases coming out of the plant’ssmokestacks. The admission of the violations by PNMclears the way for the court to determine what the companymust do to comply with the Clean Air Act and the amountof a civil penalty PNM must pay for fouling the air overthe Four Corners region.

Protecting Open SpaceProtecting open space and quality of life proved to be a toppriority for Flagstaff citizens once again. After being out-spent 3-1, Citizens for Open Space emerged victorious intwo of three Flagstaff open space bond questions in thehotly contested election held May 18. Question 302, whichprovided funding for open space and the Flagstaff UrbanTrails system, won by a 58% - 42% margin. Question 303provided funding for purchase of open space on Obser-vatory Mesa and garnered 55% of the vote. Question 304,which was to provide funding for open space purchases onMcMillan Mesa, was defeated 53% to 47%.

Question 304 was singled out by opposition forces andwas the subject of an intensive “no” campaign in broadcastand print media. Funded by development interests fromPhoenix and Flagstaff, the opposition based its campaignon fictitious tax numbers and fabricated stories whichclaimed the land on McMillan Mesa was not for sale.However, the battle is far from over. After the election itwas revealed that Trust for Public Lands and the City ofFlagstaff have been negotiating with one of the propertyowners on McMillan Mesa to purchase the property.

“We fought the good fight and are proud of the successwe had given the vociferous opposition,” stated BeckyDaggett, Executive Director of Friends of Flagstaff’s Futureand campaign director for Citizens for Open Space. “Ourvictory combined with others around the state sends a mes-sage to all politicians that open space is valued and criticalto Arizona’s quality of life and tourism economy.”

Springdale Office ClosedAfter completing an intensive strategic planning process,which reassessed operations and revised plans for thefuture, the decision was made to close the southwest Utahoffice in Springdale. A cost /benefit analysis of the Trust’sten-year investment in the office revealed better ways toadvance our mission in the area.

The Trust is not abandoning the area and remains com-mitted to conservation advocacy on behalf of Zion NationalPark, the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve, the Virgin River, theArizona Strip and the Dixie National Forest. We will con-tinue collaborative efforts with government officials andlocal residents to preserve and protect these special places.

Observatory Mesa.

Bec

ky S

chw

artz

18

volunteers and collaborators will reflect on the work with asense of accomplishment and satisfaction. As one volunteersums it up, “You meet new people, find yourself in remoteplaces doing things you never could have imagined, andyou’re doing important conservation work. What more canyou ask for?”

My colleagues and I are continually inspired andimpressed by the dedicated individuals who have made theprogram successful. By showing us their commitment, ourvolunteers inspire us to be even better advocates of landpreservation and stewardship. At our end-of-season apprecia-tion party last December, I suddenly found myself wonderingwhat I was going to do once volunteers stopped dropping bymy office to pick up field equipment, return data sheets, orjust to chat. Hectic as the volunteer season can be coordinat-ing myriad logistics, it is also an incredibly rewarding job.After spending the winter months becoming intimately famil-iar with my office walls, by spring I was itching to see “my”volunteers again and get back in the field. Whether trackingcougars or thinning junipers, I was looking for that instantshot of energy from enthusiastic conservationists.

This season we will work with the Arizona Game andFish Department, National Park Service, and the Fish andWildlife Service to improve pronghorn antelope habitat,restore native vegetation, monitor wildlife movements, andmore. If you are interested in becoming a new volunteer,please look at the program calendar and contact us aboutworking in the field. Our only requirement is a willingnessto work hard, get dirty and have fun!

—Karen Murray

Trust Volunteers Connect with the Earth

In each Advocate we often detail accomplishments fromour volunteer program, or announce upcoming projects,and have spent little time answering the question, “well,what exactly is the Volunteer Conservationist Program?”This summer is the Trust’s sixth season bringing togethercommunity members to do on the ground conservation.Born out of a desire to blend the Trust’s policy efforts withfieldwork, the award-winning program blossomed underBob Hoffa’s expert direction. Each year dozens of return-ing volunteers join new faces to dig, survey, plant, andmuscle the Earth to a restored state.

The vision of the program is to create a sustainingrelationship between Colorado Plateau residents and thenatural environment by building a community of willingand enthusiastic volunteer stewards. Our goals are toimplement key conservation projects that restore healthyecosystems; to provide meaningful hands-on conservationexperiences; and to collaborate with agencies and organi-zations to further the Trust’s mission.

But beyond this strategic framework, the program isultimately a fun and rewarding way to make tangible,positive environmental contributions. Struggling againsta torrent of news about negative human impacts to ourenvironment, for many the volunteer program is a wel-come way to make an immediate difference. Working inenvironmental conservation can often seem like a contin-ual uphill slog through minefields of political, top-leveldecisions that can quickly derail our efforts. Yet at the endof a volunteer project I can almost guarantee that both

19

S T A F F N O T E S

20

Richard MayolDirector of Communications

Richard joined the Trust team inApril 2004 as CommunicationsDirector and brings 25 years experi-ence as a nationally recognized,award winning media and communi-cations consultant. Prior to joiningGCT, Richard was the co-owner ofFirst Tuesday Inc. and New WestPolicy Group LLC, public affairs andpolitical consulting firms where hemanaged and produced public edu-cation and media campaigns forballot measures, advocacy organiza-tions, business and trade associations,municipalities, and congressional,gubernatorial and mayoral candidatesacross the West. His campaign workhelped win public approval for fund-ing McDowell Mountain Preserve inScottsdale, Arizona; the purchase ofWillow and Watson Lakes in Prescott,Arizona and open space funding inFlagstaff and Prescott, Arizona, andSanta Fe, New Mexico among others.

Richard’s work at the Trust includescommunications planning, press andpublic relations, and publications andwebsite management. He is a graduateof the University of Tulsa, past BoardPresident of Prevent Child AbuseInc., and a member of the AmericanAssociation of Political Consultants.

Tony SkrelunasNative America Program Manager

Grand Canyon Trust is pleased towelcome Tony Skrelunas to the pro-gram staff. Tony is Senior ProgramManager and directs the NativeAmerica Program. He rejoined theTrust in December 2003 after spend-ing 12 years working on sustainableeconomic development as ExecutiveDirector of the Navajo Nation Eco-nomic Development Division andGovernment Development Office, asa partner in Horizon Springs Partner-ship, and as the former GCT NativeAmerica Program Director.

Tony coordinates the Trust’s workwith the Hopi and Navajo Nations,tribal communities, and non-govern-mental organizations on conservationand sustainable development pro-jects. He is a partner in SouthwestTradition Log Homes—specializing insmall diameter log homes, serves asBoard President for the Navajo NationShopping Centers Inc., and BoardChair of the Native American Com-munity Development Corporation,a non-profit affiliate of the NativeAmerican National Bank. Tony earneda B.A and M.B.A. from Northern Ari-zona University.

Karen MurrayVolunteer Program Manager

Karen joined the Trust in May 2003to help run the Volunteer Conserva-tionist Program for the summer. Shehas a bachelor’s degree in HumanEcology from Vassar College, and amaster’s in Environmental Manage-ment, with an emphasis onConservation Biology, from the YaleSchool of Forestry and EnvironmentalStudies. Between college and gradu-ate school, Karen worked several fieldbiology positions for state and federalagencies, including the study of bear-human interactions in Yosemite, LakeClark, and Denali National Parks, andresearching black bears in Virginia.Her interests include wildlife ecology,carnivore conservation, and applyingher ecology background to policyand management decision-makingprocesses. Karen manages the Volun-teer Conservationist program, andworks on Grand Canyon relatedissues, such as restoring gray wolvesto the Southwest. She has given talksat several national conferences,including a paper on wolf-humaninteractions in Denali at the 2003World Wolf Congress.

Good-Byes

21

Anna Masayesva Native America Program Associate

The Trust welcomes Anna to theNative America Program team. Sheis a member of the Hopi Tribe fromthe Village of Bacavi. Anna will beworking out at Hopi 75% of the time.Through her community outreachefforts, she will assist the Hopi Tribe’sCommunity & Economic PlanningDepartment, and individual villageswith grant writing and community-based sustainable developmenteducation. Formerly, Ms. Masayesvawas a Program Assistant at the U.S.Institute for Environmental ConflictResolution where she performedresearch and provided administrativesupport for several projects andprograms. Anna holds a B.S. inEnvironmental Science from the Uni-versity of Arizona and will begin hergraduate program in 2005

Vanessa VandeverNative America Program Associate

Vanessa has been selected to servein the prestigious Morris K. UdallFoundation’s Congressional SummerInternship Program. Vanessa has beenassigned to Senator John McCain’soffice and will rejoin the NativeAmerica Program in August. She isa member of the Navajo Tribe andworked in the Trust’s community out-reach and sustainable developmentprojects on the Navajo Nation. Previ-ously, Ms. Vandever worked with theEnvironmental Careers OrganizationInc. in Washington D.C. where shewas an associate with the Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA)coordinating the EPA/Tribal Newslet-ter Pilot Project. She is a Stanfordgraduate with a B.A. in Political Sci-ence and is working toward an M.S.in Resource Management at CentralWashington University. We are proudof her achievements and value hercontribution to the Trust. Congratula-tions Vanessa!

The recently completed strategicplanning process reassessed opera-tions, and revised plans and prioritiesfor the future. The reorganizationresulted in some staff changes.

As we head off in new directions,the Grand Canyon Trust wants toacknowledge the contributions madeby the departing staff members.

Bob Hoffa, who joined the Trust inJune 2001, was the Trust’s WildlandsProtection Program Manager andcoordinated the volunteer conserva-tionist program. While at the Trust,Bob led our volunteer program andproduced a detailed, science-basedstudy titled Greater Zion ConservationAnalysis that provides an ecologicalframework for prioritizing conserva-tion efforts in the Greater Zion area.

Chris Newell became a staff memberin January 2000 and was SouthwestUtah Senior Program Manager forthe Trust. Chris represented theTrust as a member of the Red CliffsReserve Advisory Committee, ledour work in the Arizona Strip andworked with the Nature Conservan-cy and the Utah governor’s office onefforts to protect the headwaters ofthe Virgin River.

Michele James was SpeciesConservation Program Manager forthe Trust since her arrival in January2002. Her work at the Trust centeredon reducing and eliminating threatsto imperiled species and their habi-tats on the Colorado Plateau. For thepast year her primary focus was onproducing Sustainable Multiple UseAlternatives for the new manage-ment plans for southern Utah’snational forests, the Dixie, Fishlakeand Manti-LaSal.

The Grand Canyon Trust wishesthem well in their future endeavors.

22

Why Have a Will?A will is one of the most important documents you will ever sign. Think about the things a will enables you to do:• A will lets you direct precisely who will receive all the property you have accumulated over your lifetime. With-

out a will, the state decides who receives what—all according to inflexible rules.• Your will can contain a trust that provides financial security and money management for family members who

need special assistance.• Your will permits you to nominate the persons who will handle your estate or serve as guardians of children.• Your will enables you to assist friends, worthwhile causes, institutions and others that the law omits.• A skillfully drafted will can allow your family to minimize death taxes and other costs that may sap your estate

of vital assets.• Your will can be an expression of your personal values. You may wish to memorialize a special person in you life,

aid an impoverished friend, or distribute cherished heirlooms to special people.

Executing a will is neither difficult nor expensive. Yet the rewards are great indeed, both in peace of mind and inpersonal satisfaction.

How to get a willObtaining a will is as simple as 1-2-3.1. Call your attorney. Make an appointment to plan your will. If you do not have an attorney, ask a friend or a

relative to recommend one, or call your local bar association.2. Prior to the appointment, sit down and write out all the goals you would like to accomplish through your will.3. Follow your will planning through to completion. Store your will in a safe place and examine it periodically to

assure that it is up to date with your family needs and personal desires.

Planning a Will That is Practical… and Deeply SatisfyingWe have received many bequests—gifts by will—from thoughtful people who considered it only fitting to provideus something from their estates. Their bequests were simply a continuation of the support they had provided alltheir lives. For these gifts we are profoundly grateful. And it is satisfying to point out that in a well-planned will,the cost of a bequest to our future can be surprisingly modest.

Your bequest can be of a stated dollar amount, or you can leave us a specific property. Some of our benefactorsprefer to bequeath a certain percentage of the “residue” (the amount that remains after paying all inheritances,debts and costs). There are special arrangements by which your bequest can provide financial benefits to yourfamily and later be used in out programs.

If You Already Have a WillGreat! We hope you keep it up to date. When the time comes to make a change, a simple codicil (amendment)often is all that is needed. If you are considering a codicil, or a whole new will, may we suggest one more satisfyingchange: a bequest to assist in our programs.

My Will to HelpI have included you as a beneficiary of my will or other estate plans, as follows:

I would like someone to contact me about planning a giftfrom my estate.

Name

Address

City/State/Zip

Daytime Telephone

Your Will Can Help Grand Canyon Trust

23

Staff Members Board of Trustees

Charles WilkinsonChairman, Boulder, CO

Pam HaitVice-Chair, Phoenix, AZ

Louis H. CallisterSecretary-Treasurer, Salt Lake City, UT

Carter F. BalesNew York, NY

James E. Babbitt Flagstaff, AZ

David Bonderman Fort Worth, TX

Bill Budinger Key West, FL

Rob Elliott Flagstaff, AZ

Jim Enote Zuni, NM

Bert Fingerhut Aspen, CO

Jim Freeman, III Phoenix, AZ

John Leshy San Francisco, CA

Owen Olpin Teasdale, UT

Eva Patten Bozeman, MT

John P. SchaeferTucson, AZ

William B. Smart Salt Lake City, UT

Susan M. Williams Albuquerque, NM

Hansjörg Wyss Tucson, AZ

Jim TreesFounder and

Emeritus Chair San Francisco, CA

Stewart L. UdallCounselor Santa Fe, NM

N. Scott MomadayPoet Laureate Jemez Springs, NM

Headquarters OfficeBill HeddenExecutive Director

Darcy AllenDevelopment and AdministrativeManager

Steve FluckGIS Analyst

Greg IrelandGrants and Membership Manager

Kelly JanecekProgram Manager

Anna MasayesvaNative America Program Associate

Richard MayolDirector of Communications

Taylor McKinnonProgram Manager

Rick MooreAssociate Director

Karen MurrayProgram Manager

Kim PhelpsDevelopment Assistant

Nikolai RamseySenior Program Manager

Tom RobinsonDirector of Government Affairs

Adrianne SanchezAdminstrative Assistant

Evelyn SawyersDirector of Finance

Becky SchwartzFinance and Adminstrative Assistant

Tony SkrelunasProgram Manager

Vanessa VandeverNative America Program Associate

Moab, Utah OfficeEleanor BlissAdministrative Assistant

Laura KamalaProgram Manager

Scottsdale, Arizona OfficeLisa ForceProgram Manager

Artist Bio

Special Thanks to...

Serena SuppleePainter of Grand Canyon’s Inner GorgeSerena’s most recent series, Inner Gorge Metaphors, reflects herlove affair with the Inner Gorge of the Grand Canyon. Sheportrays what many visitors to the rim may otherwise neversee, the interplay of the Vishu Schist & Zoroaster Granite inrelationship to the Colorado River. She sees the river as thelifeblood of the canyon and this image has become a personalmetaphor for her life. Floating on the twisting turbulent riveris like the fluid highway of life, surprises around each bend,obstacles and challenges, elation and joy.

Inner Gorge Metaphors will be on display at the Kolb Stu-dio, on the South Rim of Grand Canyon, January 16 – March28, 2006 sponsored by the Grand Canyon Association.

See more of her work at serenasupplee.com

John Running and David Edwards (and Mali) forgraciously donating their very fine photography tothe Native America Program. See page 16.

Grand Canyon Trust2601 N. Fort Valley RoadFlagstaff, Arizona 86001(928) 774-7488

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION

U.S.POSTAGE PAID

Flagstaff, AZPermit No. 43

Visit our website athttp://www.grandcanyontrust.org

The Colorado Plateau

Advocate

Permission is hereby granted to reprint sections of theColorado Plateau Advocate for non-commercial purposesprovided that nothing is altered or edited in any wayand that an appropriate credit line and copyright noticeare included (©Grand Canyon Trust).

. . . is a publication of the Grand Canyon Trust, a non-profit organization

dedicated to protecting and restoring the Colorado Plateau

Advocate StaffEditorial Team:

Richard Mayol, Becky SchwartzDesign: Joan Carstensen Design

Prepress and Printing: Aspen Printing

Headquarters2601 N. Fort Valley Road

Flagstaff, AZ 86001(928) 774-7488

(928) 774-7570 Fax

Moab, Utah OfficeHC 64, Box 1801Moab, Utah 84532(435) 259-5284

Scottsdale, AZ OfficeP.O. Box 1589

Scottsdale, AZ 85252(480) 945-5455

Cover art by Serena Supplee:Front: Artery of the CanyonBack: You are My Symphony

VisionWe work toward a region where generations of peopleand all of nature can thrive in harmony. Our vision forthe Colorado Plateau one hundred years from now is:• A region still characterized by vast open spaces with

restored, healthy ecosystems and habitat for allnative plants and animals.

• A sustaining relationship between human communitiesand the natural environment.

• People living and visiting here who are willing andenthusiastic stewards of the region’s naturalresources and beauty.

The Missionof the Grand Canyon

Trust is to protect and

restore the Colorado

Plateau—its spectacular

landscapes, flowing

rivers, clean air, diversity

of plants and animals,

and areas of beauty

and solitude.

This publication is printed with soy based inks.